-
REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
AND GOOD PRACTICES
Opportunities for transfer of NanoBioNet experience
M. Mallmann
www.nanobionet.de
The INOLINK survey
• Between June 2010 and March 2011 the survey was performed in
ten European regions
• Data collection was based on document search, existing
surveys/databases, INOLINK (internal) partners surveys, stakeholder
interviews
• Target group: regional (institutional) stakeholders (about 130)
Expected output and goals
•
•
•
•
Identify the actors within the regional innovation system
Identify good practices existing in the participating regions
Identify the innovation needs
Provide information about the SME policy, the research &
innovation policy, financial support mechanisms and support
programmes for innovative business groupings (target firms,
internationalisation policy…).
Economy
Different historical development and economical backgrounds
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agriculture
Tourism
Service Sector
Coal and steel
Marine industry
and others
General regional characteristics
RIS (2009)
Size/km2
Population
West
Midlands,
UK
Saarland,
DE
Abruzzo
Region, IT
Tuscany, IT
med-high
13.000
5.400.000
med-high
2.569
1.022.585
average
10.794
med-low
Algarve, PT
Andalusia,
ES
Extremadur
a, ES
North-East
Region, BG
North-East
Region, RO
Podravska
Regija, SL
Nr. of
students
(%)
6,20
Population
in cities
(%)
35,00
Innovation
Strategy
since
1999
1,83
16,90
2001
1.340.000
4,50
12,30
1997
22.994
3.734.365
n.a.
18,90
1994
med-low
4.669
434.023
2,23
0,00
2006
med-low
87.399
8.302.923
2,76
31,78
2005
low
41.634
1.102.410
2,09
13,40
1998
low
14.487
988.935
3,30
42,80
2008
low
36.850
3.712.396
2,15
21,94
2005
n.a.
2.170
323.343
7,58
34,75
2007
Lack of innovation awareness obstructing regional development
Innovation support is not solely a technological question in terms of
funds or infrastructure but depends on the capabilities, openness and
skills of the players involved.
The INOLINK study shows that the innovation potential of the individual
region cannot be identified and developed until the regional players
have reached a common understanding of the essence of innovation.
Innovative sectors I
• Not only high-tech sectors like IT, bio- or nanotechnology are
addressed in the survey but as well established sectors like tourism
or construction are seen with an innovative potential by the
stakeholders
• Only in a few cases more than 75% of the requested stakeholders
agreed on their regional innovative sectors.
Aeronautics
Agriculture/Forestry/Fisheries
Automotive
Chemicals
Consultancy services
Energy
Environmental technologies
Fashion
Food and beverage / Agrifood
Green Energy
ICT/Software
Industrial Production
Marine
Engineering/Construction/Steel
Medical/Health
New Materials/Nanotechnology
no important innovative sector in this region
more than 5 % of stakeholders see innovative strength
more than 25 % of stakeholders see innovative strength
Pharmaceutical/Biotechnoloy
Telecomunication
Textile Industry
Tourism
more than 50 % of stakeholders see innovative strengh
Transport/Logistik
more than 75 % of stakeholders see innovative strengh
Wholesale and retail trade
West Midlands
Tuscany
Saarland
Podravje
North-East Romania
North-East Bulgaria
Extremadura
Andalusia
Algarve
Abruzzo Region
Regional innovative sectors II
Critical factor evaluation
The variety of answers, the low maximum amount of total counts per
measure and sometimes very individual answers like “appearance in
press, public perception” showed that the evaluation, definition and
perception of innovation seems to be open to many subjective,
individual estimations.
Together with the fact that some data like the spin-off activities in
innovative or developing sectors were not traceable in all regions it
seems obvious that further effort has to be taken to deliver reliable
data for the policy makers.
Direct innovation support measures
Parameters or methods
Total %
Promoting closer interaction between universities, public research institutes and companies
70.5
Direct support of corporate R&D (grants, loans)
47.5
Business advisory services (general consultancy and support in developing business)
43.4
Promotion of entrepreneurship/start up (including incubators)
43.4
Incentives for investment in corporate R&D
34.4
Internationalisation
26.2
Feasibility funds
23.8
Funds for networking
17.2
Information and consultation on grants and funds
17.2
Information and consultation on technology transfer
15.6
Exchange of information on contract research. licences. IPR issues
15.6
Mediation of relevant partners or research institutes
13.9
Cluster support measures
13.9
Saarland: Results and Experiences
Area:
2.568 km²
Population:
1.022.500
Unemployment rate: 8.0%
Employees:
450.000
Agriculture:
1%
Industry:
33%
Service:
43%
Trade & Transport:
24%
Borders with France and
Luxembourg
Nationality changed
8 times during the last
200 years!
Challenges in the Saarland
The European Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) classify the Saarland’s
innovation performance in 2004 and 2006 as medium-high and concerning
the enablers (tertiary education, life-long learning, public R&D, broadband)
as average.
Other studies reveal a low R&D rate of employment and of turnover in research
and development or identify the areas of public finances and demography
as Saarland’s real weaknesses.
On the other hand it is pointed out that the Saarland “shows how it is possible
to approach a structural transformation through a shrewd innovation policy
and the favourable tailwind of global economic activity’” or foster the
Saarland as Entrepreneur-friendly: “between 2000 and 2008 there were
40% more company start-ups than closures in this region. The ratio
nationwide is 27%.”
Structual Change and Innovation Strategy
agriculture
and industry
coal mining
and
steel industry
automotive and
services
ICT and
Nano-/
biotechnology
Innovation roadmap
Innovation Strategy 1.0
> 85 projects
Interim
Balance Sheet
Innovation Strategy up to 2015
> 110 projects
CLUSTER
Innovation Strategy since 2000
Formation of Innovation
Clusters
 it.saarland
 nanobio.saarland
 automotive.saarland
 logistics.saarland
 healthcare.saarland
A good innovation policy integrates economic, science and education policy
The NanoBioNet Cluster
•
…is a network of universities, research institutes, clinics, companies and further experts
from the fields of technology transfer, business and financing with about 120 members .
•
Funded in 2002 with support of the Saarland government, the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research and European funds.
•
2010 Fusion of NanoBioNet and the competence centre cc-NanoChem.
•
2011 Founding of the German Nanotechnology Association: Deutscher Verband
Nanotechnologie
NanoBioNet
Non-profit association
Main office: 4-6 employees
Chemist, 2 Biologists, PR- Professional, 2 part- time assistances
Board of Directors: 5
Scientific advisory board: 12
Turnover 2009: 750.000 €
Funding:
Project funding by Saarland State, the EC and Germany
Member fees (250 € per year for companies)
Income (Training, NanoSchoolBox, PR-work)
Services
•
Financial support for feasibility studies and development
•
Professional technology scouting
•
Help with submitting applications and handling application procedures
•
Developing advanced training modules in the field of nanotechnology
•
Market leader experimental school kit: NanoSchoolBox
•
PR and Marketing
•
Organization conferences and workshops
• International conference on nanomedicine: NanoMed, Berlin
• Conference on nano and ethics: SIZE MATTERS
Feasability Funds
•
50% co-funded, max. 25.000€
•
Nominated for the NGP Cluster Excellence Award
•
26 (meanwhile 30) studies funded with 650.000 €
•
12.5% have already resulted in a marketable products
•
18.75% resulted in patents
•
37.5% of the studies generated follow-up projects
Good Practice: Cluster
The question “How could innovation support services be provided more effectively” was
answered by the majority “by introducing fast track procedures for administration
and evaluation of projects” and by offering more integrated innovation support
services (e.g. one-stop-shop approach).
With the offer of the externally managed feasibility studies the Saarland is already
on the right path^.
The very good interaction and cross-linking between the regional stakeholders enables
the exchange of experiences and the communication flow.
Therefore it is not surprising the ”lack of access to networks” is no issue for the
interrogated stakeholders.
Relevance of barriers preventing companies from organizing
innovation processes more effectively (All regions)
90,0
80,0
70,0
High
60,0
Low
50,0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
Lack of cutting-edge
Lack of access to
Lack of access to
Lack of access to
knowledge of new
knowledge (e.g.
networks (cluster
qualified and creative
technologies and/or
research, patents,
initiatives, business
business models
standards, etc.)
networks)
skills / staff
Lack of incentives
Lack of innovation
for cooperation
management skills
between players
Lack of time
Relevance of barriers preventing companies from organizing
innovation processes more effectively (Saarland)
18
16
14
12
10
High
Low
8
6
4
2
0
Lack of cutting- Lack of access to Lack of access to Lack of access to
edge knowledge
knowledge
networks
qualified staff
Lack of
Lack of
incentives for
cooperation
innovation
management
skills
Lack of time
Lack of a
Lack of workers-
professional
innovation
process
involvement in
the process
Relevance of barriers preventing companies from introducing
innovations onto the market (all regions)
100
90
80
70
60
High
50
Low
40
30
20
10
0
Lack of market
information
Lack of demand for Lack of access to
new products
finance innov ation
Lack of access to Lack of appropriate Lack of information
international
markets
IP protection
on innov ation
measures
Lack of "flat"
bureaucracy
Relevance of barriers preventing companies from introducing
innovations onto the market (Saarland)
14
12
10
8
High
Low
6
4
2
0
Lack of market Lack of demand Lack of access Lack of access
Lack of
Lack of
information
for new
to finance
to international appropriate IP information on
products
innovation
markets
protection
innovation
measures
Lack of "flat"
bureaucracy
Lack of own
Lack of
Lack of
funds
creativity & idea professional
generation
technology
marketing
Good Practice : KWT
IPR Services
How to provide more effective innovation support services (Saarland)
16
14
12
10
High
8
Low
6
4
2
0
By involving private
organizations and innovation
experts more directly in
providing services
By introducing fast track
procedures for administration
and evaluation of projects
By giving SMEs greater
freedom of choice as to the
service provider
By offering more integrated Raise awareness for innovation
innovation support services &
(culture, mentality)
information
How to provide more effective innovation support services
(North East Romania)
10
9
8
7
6
High
5
Low
4
3
2
1
0
By involving private organizations and
By introducing fast track procedures for
By giving SMEs greater freedom of
By offering more integrated innovation
innovation experts more directly in
providing services
administration and evaluation of projects
choice as to the service provider (e.g.
through innovation vouchers)
support services (e.g. one-stop-shop
approach)
How do companies benefit ?
How do companies benefit ?
Challenges in the Saarland I
The understanding of ”innovation“ and the target-oriented application of
evaluation or success measures varies strongly among the
stakeholders.
Especially the input und output factors are difficult to trace.
As public funding sources are getting low it is essential for the donators
to evaluate or estimate the return of investment (ROI).
Challenges in the Saarland II
In contrast to some regional and German-wide studies where the little
„amount of entrepreneurs and self-employed/freelance workers“ is
tackled the Saarland stakeholders do not focus on this point very
much.
But it is clearly visible that the Spin-Off activities in the nano- and
biotechnology sectors decreased rapidly within the last years.
Future role of innovation networks
In addition to a large number of inspiring examples of successful and
effective innovation policies, the INOLINK study revealed several
weaknesses in the infrastructure of the regions like the
– lack of innovation awareness
– lack of institutionalized communication between the players.
By implementing the planned expansion of institutionalised regional
innovation networks, analysing the results of the survey and
identifying diverse good practices, INOLINK wishes to play its part in
achieving a sustainable regional development.
This is the end. Thanks to…
… you for listening,
… the INOLINK partners for contributing,
… the NanoBioNet team for its support.
Contact and further information:
NanoBioNet e. V.
M. Mallmann
Science Park 1
66123 Saarbrücken
www.nanobionet.de
[email protected]